‘Jeremy Hunt, in his speech to the party conference, compared the EU to the Soviet Union or a prison.’
Photograph: James Gourley/REX/Shutterstock

Something odd happens to Conservative politicians these days when they get the job of foreign secretary. They seem to feel an urge to start insulting our European friends and allies. Boris Johnson, among many other gaffes, described the former French president François Hollande (a mild-mannered man) as like a Nazi prison guard wanting to administer punishment beatings. Now Jeremy Hunt, in his speech this week to the party conference, has compared the EU to the Soviet Union or a prison trying to prevent Britain escaping.

Our continental neighbours are wearily resigned to British ministers engaging in Euro-bashing at this time of year. But Hunt’s jibe about the Soviet Union was as disrespectful as it was insensitive. Had he forgotten the sufferings of the Baltic states and what the EU has brought them in terms of freedom and prosperity, thanks to British leadership in pressing for EU enlargement in the 1990s? Or did he not care, in his pursuit of an applause line? I don’t know which is worse, but the dignified protests of several ambassadors to Britain show how hurtful this comparison was.

All foreign secretaries have to learn that things change when they move into that cavernous office in King Charles Street. As Hunt has found this week, their words are listened to around the world, and party knockabout can have international consequences. There will now be a question mark in the minds of his foreign minister colleagues about his judgment and seriousness. That matters, because Britain needs a foreign secretary who commands respect in the world.

What could have real impact on the Brexit negotiations is the narrative emerging from the Tory party conference that Europe is looking to punish Britain for wanting to leave. Dominic Raab, the Brexit negotiator, echoed Hunt on this, though his language was less emotive. It is a profound misreading of how the EU is approaching the negotiations. Of course countries such as France want to attract the jobs that will inevitably leave Britain as a result of Brexit, but they have no interest in punishing us: an economically successful post-Brexit Britain will benefit Europe.

The overriding concern of EU governments is to protect the structure of laws and regulations that enable this unique organisation to function. Preserving the integrity of the single market is not some theological point, as Raab suggested. The single market operates on a set of rules stipulating that those who enjoy its benefits must also accept its disciplines, including free movement of labour. That’s why the EU was clear from the outset that Britain’s choice was between two broad options: either a very close alignment with the single market and customs union, on the Norway model, or a clean break and in due course a free-trade agreement on the Canada model, with all that means for border checks and hence the Irish border. This choice isn’t about punishment: it’s about applying the rules-based EU system that Britain helped to shape.

After Britain invoked article 50, the EU waited 15 months for an indication of which path Britain wanted to take. When the Chequers proposal finally arrived, it was a fudge between the two options, with no solution to the Irish border. And it was followed shortly afterwards by the prime minister declaring that it was “my deal or no deal”.

The message from the Salzburg summit that Chequers, as it stood, would not work should not have been a surprise. European leaders took this as our (belated) opening position. They were playing by the EU negotiating rulebook: each side outlines their approach leaving some flexibility, which then produces a last-minute deal. Given the divisions in the Tory party, many in Europe must now be wondering whether we are using the same rulebook. If we are, then once the party conference is out of the way Theresa May will come forward with some amendments to Chequers, at which point the EU will find some room for manoeuvre and a deal may become possible.

But if the prime minister is so hamstrung that she has no scope to move away from Chequers, then no deal becomes a real possibility. EU leaders will also be weighing the risk that, even if they do compromise, May will be unable to get any deal through parliament – at that point, Britain would be in a deep political crisis and the only option would be to put the issue back to the people in an election or a referendum.

European governments certainly don’t want the UK crashing out. But they are waking up to the fact that the chaos in British politics might bring that about. The government would be making a serious mistake to assume this provided negotiating leverage. Our European friends can see how poorly prepared Britain is to cope with no deal, starting with the massive problems it would create for the flow of goods and people. They know that no deal would hurt Britain far more than the EU, so it is not a credible threat for Britain to brandish.

European governments will pay close attention to the prime minister’s speech today for clues on what choice Britain will make in the weeks ahead. They will understand that the tone will be firm, but they will be looking for her to cool the rhetoric, to re-establish a tone of mutual respect, to get away from the narrative of punishment and at least to leave the door open to a genuine negotiation. If the result of the party conference is to shut down all further room for manoeuvre, then the Europeans will not see it as their role to prevent us committing an unparalleled act of self-harm.

• Lord Peter Ricketts is a former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office and ambassador to France